And when one is hit in the face by a administration backsliding into McCarthyism(witch hunts for “terrorists”), revocation of the civil liberties which have made strides over the past half-century(Patriot act, “free speech zones”), and what many perceive to be a colossal foreign policy blunder with the international community(unilateral decision to use force in Iraq), it seems perfectly normal to re-double one’s complaints.
Enjoy,
Steven
Darnit, my favorite Onion article on this subject from a couple of weeks back isn’t archived (if anyone else read it, it was the sarcastic letter to the editor about “you know, this kind of dissent [insert several excellent reasons for not starting war here] is exactly what we shouldn’t be doing right now”), but this one pretty much sums it up, too…
“U.S. Vows to Defeat Whoever It Is We’re At War With”
http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/us_vows_to_defeat_whoever.html
A more comprehensive response to some of the posts above will follow later.
Depends on what you mean by “superiority”. If you mean “quest for global domination and we will kill you with our superior weapons if you oppose us”, then I agree. However, I don’t think it’s in any way “natural” to agree with that. There are other kinds of superiority besides physical, but a lot of people seem to have forgotten that.
Personally, I find it UNnatural that Bush would enjoy as much public support as he does, given his extremely dangerous and ill-considered foreign policy.
I would agree that the majority of the Afghan people are better off, this month, than they were in April, 2001. (Which was one reason I supported the action in Afghanistan.) However, I am not persuaded that they will be better off (either with a resurgent Taliban, another civil war, or living under the guns of their “liberators” in a couple of years), if we do not make a serious effort to provide them some stability, soon. Looking at the current quarter’s report is typical of American business–but looking at the long term is another lesson that Americans seem to ignore.
From that perspective, your question is either irrelevant to the current discussion or underlines the mentality of “We’re OK!” (regardless of facts) to which several posters have already objected in this thread.
The argument that you can invade a country just to improve people’s lives is just pathetic. Sadly, I have been countering this same argument for some years now with my Chinese friends because that is precisely one of the main arguments used by China with respect to Tibet: they were a backwards, medieval, society, and we have improved their lives. I have countered many times saying that there is no excuse for a country to invade another country just to modernise it and I pointed that by that argument the USA could invade other countries just to improve them and the USA did not go around doing such things. I guess I’ll haev to eat my words now.
Okay, here goes some more anti-americanism:
Explain the necessity of the Bush tax cut? Tell me how removing the estate tax and capital gains taxes will somehow benefit the economy? I want an explanation now. Its not just about Iraq, trust me. I am not a Democrat, okay. I am liberal, but I don’t like the Democratic party. I liked GHWB, not because he was of my ideology, but at least his ideas mostly stood up to reason.
About the Iraq war. I am not going to argue with you, december, about whether this thing was a success or not. I think it is too early to tell. But, yes… right now the Iraqis seem to be happy. According to your point of view, the Bush administration has been right about everything so far (If that doesn’t show blind loyalty, then I don’t know what does). If you don’t agree with this, then tell me something you would’ve done differently. I don’t disagree with freeing the Iraqi people. But, I also think that this point of view is very hypocritical. If you are so supportive of this, then why aren’t you in favor of taking down North Korea next? Why not China?
The underlying problem I have with the Bush administration is the way they do business. Look, we knew from the beginning that we wanted regime change in Iraq. But the administration made a huge foul-up when they decided that they wanted to get approval with this little venture at the UN. Regardless of the intentions of Bush, the rest of the world percieved it as a means to go to war with Iraq. The rest of the world percieved it that way. You can say, “yeah, well we can’t control the way the rest of the world thinks. If they are anti-american, then they wouldn’t want it anyway.” That simply doesn’t matter. It is of upmost importance that the rest of the world thinks that our intentions are good. If the rest of the world thinks we are up to no good, then it doesn’t matter how powerful our economy or our military is.
Even if we were right, we did a pitiful job of convincing everyone else.
you said:
This is exactly the reasoning I am thinking about. Our government is superior, right? How much time have you spent in another country, just out of curiosity? If I only drank Budweiser and a Natural Light and Keystone, I could talk all day about how Budweiser is the best beer in the world. But what do the Germans think about that when they have Franziskaner?
You talk about how American capitalism is so great because its much better than Communism. I agree its better, but that isn’t saying much. That’s the purpose of dissent. People must be critical in order to be able to learn from our experiences. If our war in Iraq were to fail, who would you blame? France? the rest of the world for not agreeing with us and putting us under a more favorable light?
As for the Afghanistan thing, I don’t know if it is better now than before, but I assume it is. But, that can’t be the criteria we use to judge. What if, in 20 years time Iraq is exactly as it is now, economically, but with a democracy. The wealth is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy oil owners. Did we win? yes, but did we do the best that we could? I doubt it.
This is why I’m complaining. We Americans have so much potential to do much better, but we don’t because the current folks in power now are simply not receptive to criticism. “fermez la bouche!” Also, I don’t have the cites on hand, but I can provide them if necessary of the same republican leaders who are urging complacenty that were criticising clinton in 99 in Kosovo. I’ll provid them if you don’t believe me. I know Rumsfeld did.
By the way, what happend to “I want to be a uniter, not a divider?” Does that go for the rest of the world or just the US?
Or does it only apply to the right?
Look, I have experience with people outside of America. The world is very scared of Bush, and they think he is too cocky. And about a third of Americans think so also. How is this good?
Anyway, enjoy the next year and a half of presidential perfection while it lasts, because Bush isn’t going to be around in two years. Just like every president who lost the popular vote, he’ll be a one-term president. And no, I don’ t think he stole the presidency. I think it was fair. I didn’t like Al Gore’s recount madness. But, the majority of Americans don’t want a tax cut (maybe because the know the’ll see only a little bit of it). After he passes this 500 billion cut, that he has to cut veterans benefits for, against the wishes of the public. How do you think people will feel about this. I would have a lot more respect for Dubya, and I wouldn’t think of him as evil incarnate if he didn’t insist on cutting taxes now. If you know economics, you realize that it makes no sense. Will he be able to get away with it by saying that it’s “fuzzy math” and that the challenger is “trying to scare the elderly?” His job approval rating on the economy is almost as low as his father’s was right before his defeat. Unless the economy pulls a fast one, which it assuredly won’t because the cut will only hurt the economy. you can forget about 2004. Democrats haven’t been so pissed in a long time.
BTW, I would consider myself Anti-American if that means that I am against Bush’s version of America. How would you, december, describe the America that GWB is working for? I won’t comment, because I see no substance or a real goal. All I see is scare tactics.
He had that right.
This is certainly not being critical of America.
I certainly would like to see improvement in those two governments, especially North Korea. However, military action would not be a good idea for those two countries, so we will have to pursue other means IMHO.
That’s fine. I may not agree, but I wouldn’t characterize dissatisfaction with the Bush approach as “anti-American”.
I have been in Mexico, St. Lucia, Canada, England, Holland, Denmark, Finland, Russia, China, Germany, France, Italy, Bermuda, Switzerland, Austria, Australia, Luxembourg, Israel, and Belgium. Also, I read the papers and watch the news. I think the US stacks up pretty well morally, economically, and in terms of freedom.
That was the point of my comment. It’s not saying much now, after the Iron Curtain has fallen and we have seen how bad things were. But, in the 1950’s and 1960’s, there was pretty widespread belief that American capitalism was about equally as flawed as communism, and that the ideal system would be a merger of the two.
I’m a pretty critical person, and I blame sins of omission as well as sins of commission. I blame Bush Sr. for not overthrowing the Ba’ath regime in 1991, as well as the UN and the Congress who didn’t authorize it. I also blame the US and the UN for not overthrowing the Ba’ath regime in 1998, when it became clear that Iraq would not cooperate with the inspection process.
Mtgman seems to agree with this POV, when claimed we were “backsliding into McCarthyism.” I don’t see it that way. Americans are free to dissent from government policy. In fact, dissent is downright respectible, since the “newspaper of record” (NY Times) often leads the charge. Nobody today is worried about being fired for expressing dissent.
This is true, and I believe they were wrong to criticize (And their criticism turned out to be incorrect. Clinton’s was policy was quite effective.)
It isn’t good. What’s wrong with those people? 
More likely he will just run a deficit. During the last 60 years, Democrats have often run deficits, and the public just doesn’t care.
I would prefer him not to cut taxes IF there were a way to also hold down spending. But, that may not be possible.
Yes. The public just doesn’t worry that much about unbalanced budgets.
Note that the Democrats have given him an excuse by not passing his proposed tax cut. He can claim that the economy would have been better if they had only done so.
Secure. Prosperous. All citizens properly educated. Not overly taxed. Democracies in the middle east and in Africa. These are things he has said he wants.
Oh, that will play well on the campaign trail. I only hope for America’s sake he is foolish enough to use it.
—Note that the Democrats have given him an excuse by not passing his proposed tax cut. He can claim that the economy would have been better if they had only done so.—
It isn’t just Democrats who are souring on the tax cuts, and you know it.
When we went into a situation of major federal debt and deficit before, one major thing keeping us from feeling it was the fact that most state budgets were still in great shape. Now both federal governments and states look to be in seriously bad shape. This should at least worry people, or, maybe, the President. (New York City is really in for it)
<cough>[sub]Bill Maher[/sub]<cough>[sub]Dixie Chicks[/sub]<cough>[sub]Susan Sarandon[/sub]<cough>
Sorry… something must have gone down the wrong way there…
Heck, even some of the people most likely to benefit from it don’t want it.
The tax cut may or may not be good economics. I am claiming that it is good politics. If the key issue in the 2004 election is whether to reduce taxes or to raise them, it’s likely to favor the tax-cutters. Recall that this was the issue in Reagan vs. Mondale.
Incidentally december, in three pages you have not yet explained why on Earth you equate criticism ([symbol]krites[/symbol]) of America with anti-Americanism.
As long as they stay within their “free speech zones”.**
Well, unless you’re Peter Arnett, the Dixie Chicks, Bill Mahr, Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, et. al. “Respect” isn’t the term I’d apply to the feelings towards those individuals once they voiced their opinions. Technically they’re not in jail or in plastic shredders, but “respect” isn’t something I’ve seen an outpour of.**
Well, except the above people of course. If the Patriot Act becomes permanent or (god help us) the Patriot Act II gets passed then you can bet your last dollar that there will be people sweating bullets over “expressing dissent”.**
This is simply not true. One of Clinton’s greatest accomplishments was a balanced budget. It would hardly be considered a great accomplishment if no one cared. But that wasn’t the question you were asked. You were asked how you felt people would react to cutting Veterans benefits. Especially since GWB himself was just responsible for creating a large chunk of veterans which would be eligible for benefits. If “Gulf War Syndrome” comes back and there are people who can’t get treatment because of these benefit cuts then I’d expect there to be a backlash. We need to take care of these people. The just fought a war on our behalf ferchrissake! How brutal would it be to pull the rug out from under them?
Specifically his claim seems to be that there is a new form of bigotry(which he back-dates to the 60’s), akin to racist bigotry, that he calls “anti-Americanism”. He rails against this bigotry, but he leaves the definition of what constitutes it vague and fluid. The only thing he’s committed to is saying that some institutions are perpetuating it. If you boil it down you get that he’s saying Universities, Hollywood, “a number of religious leaders and many intellectuals”, are pretty much like those families they have on Jerry Springer occasionally where the parents are KKK members and they’ve made a little pointed hood for their children and they’re passing along their irrational hatred to the next generation.
It’s a pretty nasty accusation, but he’s couched it in mild terms to avoid being banned. I don’t expect you’ll get a clear litmus test for this type of bigotry out of him. It’s more useful to leave these sorts of things vague so you can demonize people at your convenience. Plus, a clear definition and a litmus test would open it up to rational criticism and he might just find himself pressed to prove this bigotry exists and/or is being perpetuated in the manner he insinuates. I don’t believe he could defend such a position, so he’ll take it implicitly, but never explicitly.
Enjoy,
Steven
I thought I had defined it as prejudice against America. That is, a tendency to see America and American policy as worse than it really is, particularly morally worse.
Anti-Americanism might be seen by those who criticize America for certain actions, but do not criticize other nations who do the same or worse. It’s reflected in criticizing the negative aspects of the Iraq war without acknowledging the positive aspects. It’s reflected in an eagerness to believe unsupported or inaccurate criticisms, like bogus estimates of civilian deaths or “The US armed Iraq with chemical and biological weapons.” It’s reflected in an eagerness not to focus on positive American achievements, e.g., the success of the Iraq war or our leadership in world food aid.
You can easily find examples of posters, pundits, and opinion leaders who have behaved in these ways.
Apropos to this thread is an op piece from drive-in movie reviewer Joe Bob Briggs. Briggs’ thesis is that the type of sentiment expressed in the OP (that direct criticism of a war administration amounts to “anti-Americanism”) is a new form of “patriotic litmus testing”. And I agree with his assessment of the dirty trick underlying this sort of thinking: “As soon as you actually answer the ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ question, you’ve lost entirely.”
Today’s Opinion Journal has an editorial making the same point as my post above.
You may not agree with any of the above, but it sets out the POV with clarity.
And who gets to define “what it really is”? Who is to say the critics are overreacting or criticising on baseless grounds? Are you sure you want to put people in the position of being able to accuse someone else of bigotry if they disagree on if a certain government action was bad or not? Most actions don’t have a clear “right” or “wrong” attached to them. Life is more subtle than that. The idea that hypocracy is compelling evidence of bigotry really worries me. ESPECIALLY when you say that you consider silence as evidence of hypocracy. I may criticize American policy and remain silent on Mugabe. This makes me a bigot? Must I explicitly re-state my position on all other world governments and their foreign policies and then re-hash all of world history, paying close attention to the time given to both good and bad in every write-up, each time I wish to criticise America’s foreign policy?
Nope, still to nebulous. Try again.
Enjoy,
Steven
Think of your audience, Mtgman… if you know december, you already know the answer to this question. At least, if you’re what he considers a “liberal” you know it. Conservatives get more of a break when they criticize America, of course, because they’re righteous and pure and always have the best intentions. :rolleyes:
For my part, I agree with what you say Mtgman. One shouldn’t have to rehash every tired old argument about every ill thing in the world, just to be able to be critical of one’s own government. Frankly, knowing the American government as I do, I feel more qualified to be critical of it than any other government in the world… living under a particular system certainly gives a person insight to its workings, moreso than observing it from afar. If I don’t criticize other governments as much, it’s because I choose to withhold my own opinion until I have better evidence for it. Gosh, imagine that! 
Further, as I think has been stated several time already, being critical of America does not mean that a person is “anti-American.” In point of fact, being able to be critical of our own government is one of the things that defines being a citizen of America, to me.